A) the results of political science and historical research
B) the effectiveness of various methods of political science research
C) the results of political science and sociological research
D) the same type of political phenomena and processes, reveals their common features and specifics
The great English political thinker and creator of the ideological and political doctrine of liberalism -
A) J. Locke
B) J.St. Mill
C) No. 3J. Austin
D) T. Hobbes
P.I. Pestel, head of the Southern Society of Decembrists, was the author
A) "History of the Russian State"
B) "Encyclopedias of Jurisprudence"
C) "Philosophical Letters"
D) "Russian Truth"
Interpretation political sphere as a superstructure over the economic basis is characteristic of
A) conservatism
B) marxism
C) bourgeois liberalism
D) legal positivism
He believed that political life is a struggle and change, the "circulation" of elites
B) M. Weber
C) V. Pareto
D) A. Bentley
The words "Man is a political creature" belong to
A) Aristotle
B) I. Cantu
C) M. Weber
D) V. Pareto
The left-wing radical direction of Marxist thought associated with the activities of V.I. Lenin in Russia is called
A) social democracy
B) bolshevism
C) anarchism
D) Menshevism
City of the Sun "belongs to Peru
B) G. Grotius
C) T. Campanella
D) T. Hobbes
Aristotle considered the best mixed form of state
A) monarchy
B) aristocracy
C) democracy
D) polity
G. Spencer was one of the leading representatives
A) utopian socialism
B) sociological positivism
C) bourgeois liberalism
D) revolutionary populism
D) sovereign
The main work the French political philosopher Sh.L. Montesquieu, published in 1748, is called
A) "On the spirit of the laws"
B) "On the Law of War and Peace"
C) "Human Rights"
D) Leviathan
Contrasted the "city of God" - the church "the hail of the earth" - the state created by people
B) Cicero
C) F. Prokopovich
D) Aurelius Augustine
M. Weber, R. Michels, G. Mosca and V. Pareto are the founders of political
A) anthropology
B) stories
C) sociology
D) philosophy
The most famous work of N. Machiavelli is
A) "State"
B) "Sovereign"
C) "Politics"
D) "On the spirit of the laws"
Supporters liken society to a living organism
A) conservatism
B) organic school in sociology
C) Marxism
D) liberal political theory
The founder of fascism is
A) F. Franco
B) G. Goebbels
C) A. Hitler
D) B. Mussolini
The paradigm concept was introduced
A) 3. Brzezinski
B) T. Kuhn
C) M. Weber
D) D. Bell
A. Tocqueville belongs to political thinkers
C) France
D) Germany
The systems approach was first developed in the 50-60s.
A) D. Bell and 3. Brzezinski
B) V. Pareto and G. Mosca
C) T. Parson and D. Easton
D) L. Gumplowicz and G. Jellinek
T. More and T. Campanella, Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen, K. Marx and F. Engels gave a theoretical basis
A) populism
B) socialism
C) anarchism
D) liberalism
N. Machiavelli believed that all power in the state should belong
A) sovereign
B) legislative power represented by parliament
C) hereditary aristocracy
Selfless devotion to ideology and leaders, diligence, modesty in needs, willingness to make any sacrifices for the sake of a common goal - these are the characteristic features of the personality in
B) liberal democracy
C) pre-state stage of development of society
D) totalitarianism
He based his concept on the ideals of free competition, market, entrepreneurship
A) Confucianism
C) liberalism
D) Marxism
The transfer of sovereignty to the people means the complete alienation of all human rights in favor of the community, he believed
A) J.-J. Rousseau
B) J. Locke
C) C. Montesquieu
D) K. Marx
61. The totalitarian party ("monoparty") in Nazi Germany was
A) national Socialist Workers' Party of Germany
B) the socialist unified party of Germany
C) Social Democratic Party of Germany
D) Christian Democratic Union
Interprets freedom as a passive individual right to be protected from interference by the state and other people
A) socialism
B) totalitarianism
D) liberalism
The central idea of \u200b\u200bRousseau's interpretation of democracy is the idea
A) protecting the minority from suppression by the majority
B) human rights
C) representative power
D) popular sovereignty
The form state structure, at which several state entities, legally possessing a certain political independence, form one union state, called
A) a unitary state
B) federation
C) republic
D) confederation
The theory, which at the beginning of the XX century. explained the nature of leadership, based on the individual qualities of a leader, was called a theory
B) charisma
D) situational
The first who likened the political system to a cybernetic machine and pointed out the leading role of information in the development of the social system was an American political scientist
A) D. Easton
B) G. Almond
Society is a living organism in all its diversity.
What is the meaning of this statement? The term "society" has been given many different definitions and explanations. The most basic concept is that society is a part of the material world that is isolated from nature, but closely interconnected with it, which consists of individuals with will and consciousness, includes ways of interaction between people and their forms of unification. So what did the author mean? In this statement, the author says that society is a real organism. As an organism, he compares them. As we know, society is divided into spheres of society. And as in the human body, there is no most important area as the most important organ of the human body. If one area changes, then changes will follow in other areas.
I completely agree with this statement, because I also believe that society is an organism. In the human body, everything is interconnected, as well as in society, respectively. The work of one area of \u200b\u200bsociety depends on the work of other areas. Each subsystem is linked to each other. If the so-called virus of the whole organism goes, gradually the organs of the sphere of society will begin to fail. By changing, solving the problem, and normalizing the situation, society will start working again. For example, we can cite the case when the country is engulfed in a crisis, the blow goes to economic sphere, that is, production is affected, then political and social spheres are affected, so the crisis reaches the spiritual sphere, from which it follows that the state cannot provide affordable and decent, a good education... But I'll give you another example. There are not always downsides. For example, the constitution states that everyone has the right to education. Availability of primary, general and secondary education is guaranteed. This means that the spiritual sphere is developing. With the development of education, a society of people develops. This means that the state is developing, new generations, choosing a profession, improve society and its system bring ever better ways of development to it.
In conclusion, I would like to say that this statement is true. Without bringing rifts to society, we will continue to improve it for the better.
G. Spencer interpreted society as social organism,who is once born, flourishes and dies. Society, like any organism, functions normally if it is healthy, and with deviations when it is sick. In a word, the organism and society have the same laws - the laws of functioning and development. They have a lot in common even in structure and organization.
Rich and poor. The strongest survives! This is wild capitalism
The role of organs of the social organism is performed by social institutions. It was G. Spencer who introduced the term "social institution" into scientific circulation. In society, he identified the initial cells (social statuses) and specialized bodies (social institutions) that perform a specific function (production, education).
The English philosopher preferred to explain institutions not in terms of individual motives and goals, but in terms of their functions in the system. If a society develops like a living organism, then its organs-institutions also change.
For example, Spencer compared the government with the human brain, and roads and highways with the venous system. Of course, this is a metaphor, but it inspired the next generation of European and then American sociologists to create many interesting theories within the framework of the structural-functional paradigm (Durkheim, Parsons, Merton). Spencer himself is ranked among the founders of sociological positivism and at the same time - among the representatives of structural functionalism.
Spencer likened social institutions to human organs that perform similar functions.
In society, as it develops, and, consequently, becomes more complex, there are more and more social institutions. As the number of institutions increases, the structure of each becomes more complex.
Evidence is provided by ethnographic materials on the conditions of economic life among the Bushmen, Eskimos, Indians of South America, historical analysis of medieval handicraft and contemporary factory industrial production in Great Britain for G. Spencer. In all cases, there is a gradual complication of functions and differentiation of executive power, specialization and division of social labor, an increase in the number of new institutions and structures as the population grows.
Social progress is determined not only by complexity, but also by the effectiveness of institutions. The better institutions function, the more society needs them. Consequently, society will allocate more forces and resources for them and keep them longer. Thus, the effectiveness and stability of social institutions are interrelated concepts.
The main task of sociology, therefore, is to study the stage-by-stage of the emergence of social institutions, the synchronicity of their interaction.
G. Spencer distinguishes six types of social institutions - domestic, ritual, political, ecclesiastical, industrial and professional. They are combined into three life support systems - producing, distributing, regulating. Their totality constitutes the global organization of society.
The totality of all institutions and functional links between them create a complex system of channels of cooperation, interaction and exchange. Before us is a picture of a modern networked society.
In a living organism, a regulatory function is performed by nervous system, in society - the state; producing function - muscles and organs of nutrition, and in society - industry and agriculture; the distribution role is played by the circulatory system in the body, transport, trade and means of communication - in society. Figuratively speaking, agriculture and industry provide nutrition for the social organism, the institution of trade - the function of blood circulation, the army - the protective skin, transport - the vascular system.
The regulatory system also includes a fear-based social control mechanism. Fear of the living forces people to obey the police, courts, lawmakers, fear of the dead - religious values, priests, rituals. The fear of the living supports the state, and the fear of the dead supports the church.
In the end, G. Spencer comes to the conclusion that society is an organism that has much more in common with living beings than with inorganic aggregates. At least two of its features testify to this. The first is that social growth, like the growth of a living organism, usually lasts either until a given society is absorbed by some other society, or until it disintegrates into two or more others. "Another distinguishing feature of both societies and living things is that along with an increase in size, they also have an increase in the complexity of their structure" [Spencer. Sociology as a subject of study. 1996. S. 281].
At the same time, the sociologist often follows the path of analogies between society and a living organism, both in general and within the framework of their specific structures. "The analogy between society and an organism," he writes, "becomes even clearer when we learn that every organism of any appreciable volume is a society, and also when we learn, further, that in both cases the lives of units continue for some time after the life of the unit is suddenly stopped by some violent means ... "[Ibid. P. 294]. However, Spencer sees not only what is in common between a living organism and society (this allows him to draw analogies between them), but also what distinguishes them from each other.
Let us summarize the main similarities and differences between biological and social organisms as Spencer saw them. Speaking about the similarities, let us name the main ones: 1) society, like a biological organism, throughout most of its existence, grows, increases in volume; 2) as society grows in volume, its structure becomes more complex, as does the structure of the organism in the process of biological evolution; 3) both in a biological and in a social organism, the differentiation of the structure of its elements is accompanied by a similar differentiation of their functions. As for the differences between biological and social organisms, the main ones are manifested in the following: 1) in a biological organism, elements live for the sake of the whole, in society, on the contrary; 2) the ability to feel and think is concentrated only in certain parts of a living organism, while in society, consciousness is "diffused" throughout the "aggregate".
In the above-mentioned Spencer's approach to society, attention is drawn to one of the first attempts at a systemic-structural approach, to which functional analysis is then added, since the English sociologist constantly strives to identify the functions of individual elements, both living organisms and social aggregates.
To illustrate the statement formulated, let us give a fragment from the work "Foundations of Sociology", which gives a clear idea of \u200b\u200bthis. "The alimentary canal," Spencer writes, "takes over the entire absorption function nutrients, gradually disintegrates into separate, distinct from each other sections, each performing its own special function, which is part of overall function the entire alimentary canal. Each individual member, which serves to move or to grasp, undergoes certain divisions and divisions; moreover, the parts thus obtained perform each of its main and auxiliary functions of the entire member. The same is true of the parts into which society falls apart. The ruling class that arises in it not only becomes different from the other classes, but also takes control over their actions; when this class further splits into subclasses, some possessing a greater, others a lesser degree of domination, then these latter again begin to fulfill each of their own, very special part of the general control. "
Thus, Spencer's sociological theory in that part of it that concerns the understanding of society is based on a position borrowed primarily from Darwin's doctrine of the living organism. In essence, society copies and reproduces it, from which it follows that biological laws are characteristic of it. The latter are adapted by Spencer in relation to society. Thus, Darwin's law of the struggle for existence, derived for the biological environment, is considered in its social manifestation as the law of class struggle.
The identification of society with a biological organism led Spencer to characterize the functions of the elements that make up the structure of the social system in a very peculiar way. So, agriculture and industry, in his opinion, perform the function of nutrition, the institution of trade, the function of blood circulation, the army is a kind of skin, transport is the vascular system, etc. At the same time, in society, as in a living organism, there is a division of labor, the analysis of which Spencer pays considerable attention - both at the level of social and organic "aggregates".
It is interesting to note that in this analysis we encounter a rare statement by Spencer of the fact that biological science is ahead of social, primarily economic. "The division of labor," he writes, "first indicated by economists as a social phenomenon and subsequently recognized by biologists as a phenomenon of organic life and called by them" the physiological division of labor, "is precisely that feature - both in society and in the animal world - that makes each of them a living body "[Ibid. P. 284].
Describing society, the scientist notes that it exists for the benefit of its members, and not vice versa. Their needs should be met primarily by the political organization of society, which the sociologist often calls "political aggregate." “It should always be remembered,” we read in Spencer, “that, no matter how great the efforts aimed at the welfare of the political aggregate, all the claims of this political aggregate are in themselves nothing and that they become something only to the extent that which embody the claims of the units that make up this aggregate "[Ibid. P. 294].
The concept of institutions reproduces the image of society by analogy with a biological organism. Spencer, apparently, was aware of the conventionality of such an analogy, but constantly used comparisons such as: "blood particles are like money", "different parts of the social organism, like different parts individual organism, fight among themselves for food and get more or less of it, depending on the greater or lesser of their activities. "
Spencer emphasized not so much material similarity as the similarity of the principles of systemic organization, sought to combine the organism, dissolving the individual in society, with its extreme individualism of a bourgeois liberal. This contradiction was the source of all his theoretical difficulties and compromises. Spencer was inclined to recognize society as a special being, pointed out that its main properties are reproduced in time and space, despite the change of generations.
He spent a lot of effort defining the specific features of a "social organism" and identifying general systemic principles that make it similar to biological systems:
1. Society, like a biological organism, increases its mass (population, material resources, etc.).
2. As in the case of biological evolution, an increase in mass leads to a more complex structure.
3. Complication of the structure is accompanied by differentiation of functions performed by separate parts.
4. In both cases, there is a gradual increase in the interdependence and interaction of parts.
5. As in biological organisms, the whole is always more stable than individual parts, stability is ensured by the preservation of functions and structures.
Spencer not only likened society to an organism, but also filled his biology with sociological analogies. Trying to avoid the crude reductionism, to which many evolutionists were so inclined, Spencer uses the term "superorganism", emphasizes the autonomy of the individual, unlike Comte, Spencer sharply criticizes organicism, draws attention to the essential differences between the social and biological organism:
1. In contrast to a biological organism, which forms a "body", which has a concrete form, the elements of society are scattered in space and have a much greater autonomy.
2. This spatial scattering of elements makes symbolic communication necessary.
3. There is no single organ in society that concentrates the ability to feel and think.
4. The society is distinguished by the spatial mobility of structural elements.
5. But the main thing is that in a biological organism the parts serve for the whole, while in society the whole exists for the sake of the parts. Society, according to Spencer, exists for the good of its members, and not its members exist for the good of society.
Spencer was not fully aware that utilitarian anthropology was inconsistent with the organism. He proposed a compromise solution: in the early stages of evolution, the natural constitution of a person determines the properties of a social aggregate, and subsequently the properties of the whole play a decisive role in social evolution. The problem of the relationship between the individual and society was solved by referring to their interaction. In Spencer's time, it was difficult to offer a more specific solution to the problem, since social psychology as a science did not yet exist.